Capmike
Member
Has anyone out there put a CPL on this lens, and do you think it has any added value?
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
Nikon 500 PF and CPL
- Thread starter Capmike
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
fcotterill
Well-known member
In certain circumstances a CPL is essential - harsh tropical light, wetlands etc. I have a 95mm Marumi CPL, which is a struggle to attach let alone "dial" with attached hood. Nikon's rear "slip-in" style CPLs are the tried and tested solution: the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 etc. Expensive but these CPLs work well IME.
Whether cost-cutting or whatever, Nikon dropping the Slip-in from the 500 PF design is another of their stupid mistakes. And they then repeated it in the excellent 120-300 f2.8E SR (112mm screw-in filters!?)
Whether cost-cutting or whatever, Nikon dropping the Slip-in from the 500 PF design is another of their stupid mistakes. And they then repeated it in the excellent 120-300 f2.8E SR (112mm screw-in filters!?)
Warren D
Well-known member
If you need a Cpol use it, but your af will take a hit from the lower light level.
I'd only use it if absolutely necessary. Sometimes they are helpful for removing excessive reflections from leaves and water surfaces, but they cost two stops of light in the process. Also, if you do use them be careful about how heavy you polarize - removing too much reflection can sometimes make a wildlife scene look unnatural.
Capmike
Member
Steve and Warren and Fcotterill, Thanks for your input. I think the times I might need it are going to be few and far between. And the chance I would have it with me would be fewer.
Mike
Mike
Harry.G
Well-known member
I have always heard the guys on here say that if you use a CPL then there is "No point" in using a lens hood that it will serve no purpose. and the CPL should be used without the hood ? ?
I could be wrong
Harry.G
I used to be a fan of CPL filters but find myself using less and less. As Steve says, photos can look artificial when over-used. I pretty much restrict it now to use with ND filters for some landscape work or when shooting into or around water.
I haven’t missed it on either the 200-500 or the 500 PF.
I haven’t missed it on either the 200-500 or the 500 PF.
Lens hoods and polarizers don't do the same thing. A polarizer removes glare from surfaces, the lens hood removes it from your front element
It's totally possible to get a lens flare with a polarizer on if it's pointed just right (although, to be fair, you normally wouldn't point a CPL towards the light since it won't do any good in that direction). When I do is if I think flare is a potential issue, I'll adjust my polarizer first and then re-attach the lens hood before I shoot. Canon and Sony actually have a notch in their lens hoods just for this purpose, Nikon cheaps out on it though :(
If you’re skilled with the Dremel you can cut your own slot.Lens hoods and polarizers don't do the same thing. A polarizer removes glare from surfaces, the lens hood removes it from your front element
It's totally possible to get a lens flare with a polarizer on if it's pointed just right (although, to be fair, you normally wouldn't point a CPL towards the light since it won't do any good in that direction). When I do is if I think flare is a potential issue, I'll adjust my polarizer first and then re-attach the lens hood before I shoot. Canon and Sony actually have a notch in their lens hoods just for this purpose, Nikon cheaps out on it though :(
There are some subjects that almost require a CP. I find alligators need a CP because they have dry or wet reflections. Sometimes it's foliage reflection or water reflection that drives the need for a CP. I've discarded otherwise good shots because of reflections that could have been controlled with a CP.
I always use a hood unless I have filter mounts that prevent use of a hood - such as with Grad ND filters. Many long lenses are particularly sensitive to flare from direct light hitting the front element. When your field of view is only 3-5 degrees, a little flare impacts the entire frame. That's why long lenses have such huge hoods, and why coatings are so important.
The challenge with a CP is the impact on ISO and shutter speed. Losing two stops makes a big difference for wildlife. It's even worse with a relatively slow lens like the 500 PF or 200-500 - both f/5.6 lenses and worse with a TC.
I don't have a CP for my 200-500. I decided it did not make sense to put a $200+ CP on a slow lens for occasional use. I do use the TC on my f/2.8 and f/4 lenses. The rear CP is used on several lenses so the economics are a lot better even for occasional use. You still need a multicoated filter. The 95mm filter runs $200 for Marumi and over $300 for B+W last time I checked.
I always use a hood unless I have filter mounts that prevent use of a hood - such as with Grad ND filters. Many long lenses are particularly sensitive to flare from direct light hitting the front element. When your field of view is only 3-5 degrees, a little flare impacts the entire frame. That's why long lenses have such huge hoods, and why coatings are so important.
The challenge with a CP is the impact on ISO and shutter speed. Losing two stops makes a big difference for wildlife. It's even worse with a relatively slow lens like the 500 PF or 200-500 - both f/5.6 lenses and worse with a TC.
I don't have a CP for my 200-500. I decided it did not make sense to put a $200+ CP on a slow lens for occasional use. I do use the TC on my f/2.8 and f/4 lenses. The rear CP is used on several lenses so the economics are a lot better even for occasional use. You still need a multicoated filter. The 95mm filter runs $200 for Marumi and over $300 for B+W last time I checked.